Greg Hudson wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-09-24 at 22:53 +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> The design might be capable of that, but the client certainly disallows
>> it.
>
> Well, we went back and forth on that. I'm not sure if there's a real
> concern with having such a thing.
>
>> Regardless of that, it is defiinitely a bug to propagate a lock to a
>> hotcopy, if the lock never existed on the revision which was selected as
>> the head revision of the hotcopy.
>
> In my mind, the lock table has no association with revisions; it's just
> a table of locked pathnames, not bound to any particular revision. So I
> don't see this as "definitely" a bug.
A hotcopy is supposed to a consistent snapshot of a repository, at some
unknown point in time during which the hotcopy process was running. If it
produces a copied repository in a state which never existed, then that in
itself is a bug. In this case, the issue is that it is possible for the
copied repository to contain a filesystem tree and set of locks which
_never_ simultaneously existed in the source repository.
Max.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Sep 25 00:12:51 2005